community but then when the policy got tough you walked away from comprehensive immigration reform. unlike his opponent, he actually believes in science and that climate change is happening. debate, marco rubio didn't accept the sea levels rising. now, he's from miami. [laughter] so you can go to miami, and on a sunny day, you can see a foot of if you want, you can put your finger in it and it is salty. it is in the middle of the road. , but apparently

what 99% of scientists and what your own eyes tell you is not true from marco rubio's perspective. meanwhile, patrick murphy brought democrats and republicans together to fund everglades restoration, he cares about the environment and as your next senator, he will fight along side hillary to protect this planet for the next generation. [applause] president obama: patrick. patrick. ptacek. -- patrick. there is one other difference. marco rubio still supports donald trump.

don't boo, vote. don't -- you know what, i always have to say this. trump can't hear you boo, but he will hear your votes. [applause] president obama: rubio doesn't care if you boo, but he will care if you vote. you know what, for some voters -- hello. for some voters, marco rubio will say i think that what donald trump said is terrible and then in front of other voters he will say i'm still supporting donald trump. you know what, you can't -- you can't have it both ways there. this is a cynical as politics get. you can't just say anything or

just pretend to be anybody in order to get elected or stay the elected. if you run for office on family values, then you should have been walking away from a nominee months ago who is calling women pigs or dogs or slobs or graded them not on the content of their character but on the scale of 1 , through 10. you can't with a slight face say you respect women and support somebody who brags about assaulting women. you don't have to be a husband, you don't have to be a father to stand up for women, you just have to be a decent person. [applause]

president obama: and i will tell you that i know everybody has been knowing michelle has been pretty passionate lately. you know, not only is it michelle's experience herself, but this is something that as parents when we think about our daughters and listen to that kind of behavior, we say that is not the kind of example we set for our children, for our boys, for our girls. [applause] >> obama. obama. obama. president obama: now, obviously i can go on and on why i don't

think that the republican nominee is fit to hold this office. because he does it himself every time he talks or tweets or gets caught on tape. but, i will say this, in my two campaigns for president, i had very strong disagreements with john mccain, i had very strong disagreements with mitt romney. i believed i had better ideas than them on how to lead the country, but i was never concerned about the fate of our democracy if they had won. [applause] president obama: michelle feels the same way. michelle doesn't love politics. she wasn't thrilled about me going to politics but she is

, working as hard as she can because she understands because there's something more fundamental at stake in this particular and that is who we are as a country? what is our character? what values do we stand for? we cannot teach our children to treat women as objects. we want to treat -- we want to teach our kids to treat everybody as full and equal citizens, capable of doing anything. we can't teach our children to vilify immigrants and people with disabilities, or americans who practice a different faith. we have to teach them that everybody matters and everybody is deserving of respect and we are stronger together than we could ever be apart. [applause] president obama we shouldn't let : our kids think that politics is about pitching a new hotel or

a new golf course or a tv contract. it's about working on the common good and promoting opportunity and justice. that's what hillary believes. that's why she has to win this election. it's at the heart of the methodist creed her mom instilled in her, do all the good for all the people that you can in all the ways that you can as long as ever you can. that's why she's in this. she believes like i believe that we can summon what's best in each of us and we can make the country better for all of us.

she believes that together we she believes that together we can do big things that we could never do on our own. and isn't that what america is all about? we are a country like no other in the world. we are a country that was founded for the sake of an idea. we hold these truths self-evident that all men are created equal. that we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights. that you don't have to be born wealth or privilege. you don't have to look a certain way. you don't have to have a certain last name. that if you're willing to give of yourself, you can move the wheel of history. that's what drove patriots to choose revolution over tyranny, that's what led gi's to liberate a continent. that's what gave women the courage to reach out for that ballot. that's what led marchs across

the bridge in some a. in selma. that's what led workers to organize for better wages. that is what has made america exceptional. that is why america is great. and all that progress, all that work hasn't happened because some person from on high did it for him, it's because we did it together. because ordinary people worked hard. because immigrant families like debbie's parents worked the night shift. they saved and scrimped. they sacrificed, they got involved. they spoke out and even though sometimes that progress is slow in coming, sometimes it's hard, sometimes it's frustrating

. ultimately that process of , self-government moved us forward and that's what hillary understands. that's what she understands. she knows that in a democracy that's big and diverse like this, you can't be demonizing each other all of the time. you can't -- you can't just make stuff up about each other. you can't spend all your time calling each other names. you've got to compromise sometimes even when you're right. she understands nobody is perfect, not even presidents, but we should try our best to conduct ourselves with just some basic home-spun values, honesty, decency, generosity, fairness, the things we try to teach our kids. the things most of us should have learned in kindergarten. that's what we should expect. [applause]

president obama look, i am here : to tell you -- i am going to be honest with you. i understand that this is a polarized country right now. i understand that everybody is rooting for their side. i understand that so much of the news during this election cycle has been discouraging or cynical and these days because of the nature of the internet and social media sometimes it's hard , to sort out what's true and what's false. i know that so many people can feel cynical sometimes about our prospects for progress and change and sometimes it feels like washington is very far away and very distant, but i'm urging

all of you and i mean this, the choice in this election is really clear. you've got one person who is really, really well-qualified. who really, really cares about doing the right thing. who is committed to sustaining the work that you and i have done together over the last eight years. i believe hillary clinton will be a great president. i believe she will move this country forward. but, she is going to need our help. it is not just enough to elect her and then have a republican congress that is already talking about not being willing to cooperate with her on anything, when they control the senate and the house. right now they can't even pass , their own stuff. and all we are going to see more gridlock and more obstruction and more threats to shut down the government and more threats

to wreck the economy. they've given up on their own nominee but they are promising , more unprecedented dysfunction in washington. they didn't work with me when i took office even when we were in the middle of a unprecedented crisis. they sure will not work with hillary now. some of them are already promising years of investigation and hearings and obstruction and repeal votes. they're already saying they may not appoint a nice supreme court justice at all. they boast about refusal to compromise as if that in and of itself is an accomplishment and all it does is prevent what everybody is looking for which is fixing up our roads and putting people to work and cleaning up our environment and fixing immigration, educating our kids, keeping them safe. [applause] president obama you know, if you : think that the slogan vote for

us because we are going to give you gridlock, if you think that's a good slogan, then you should vote republican. but i'm hoping that you're not , that cynical. i am hoping you believe america can do better. if you care about creating jobs, the families can live on it. if you care about child they can -- childcare they can afford, if you care about equal pay for equal work, if you care about raising the minimum wage, then i need you not just to vote for hillary but i need you to vote , up and down the ticket. i need you to vote for patrick murphy. i need you to vote for our members of congress. people who are willing to roll up their sleeves and move this country forward. young people, let me say this one more time.

i know you maybe cynical sometimes and you may be fed up with politics. i know there's a lot of crazy stuff on tv and even crazier stuff on the internet, but you have the chance right now to reject a divisive, mean-spirited politics that would take us backwards. you have the chance right now to elect a woman, our first female president, who has spent her entire life moving this country forward. [applause] president obama: you have a chance to shape history, so don't let that chance slip away. you've got to vote. if you've been marching for criminal justice reform, you have to vote for a president and congress who cares about reducing the pipeline from underfunded schools to overcrowded jails.

if you have been marching for the environment, i hear you but you have a president and a congress who believe in science and will protect the progress we've made because they care about the children. if you have an marching for immigration reform, i hear you, but you have to vote for congress who doesn't consider immigrants rapists or criminals but as people who love the country and are ready to contribute. whatever issue you care about, you have to vote. this is where democracy happens. this is not where it ends. it's where it happens. with your vote. hillary needs your help. i need your help. america needs your help. because your involvement is how progress works.

what you do is what's ultimately going to matter and if you -- if you do everything you can, not just to vote yourselves but to get your friends out there, your family, your cousins, your uncle, your neighbors, if you tell them, this is the moment where america has to take a stand and decide what it is that we believe in and who we are and we believe in and who we are and we are and we are not going to and we arecynicism not going to believe in fear and instead lift up hope. if you want hope instead of fear, then you will elect hillary clinton as president of the united states. and patrick murphy as senator and you will continue what we have started eight years ago and america will continue on this amazing journey.

this amazing journey in which every single person in this country has a chance to live out their dreams. god bless you, florida. god bless you. the united states of america, let's get to work. [applause]

playing] band

[marching band playing]

>> on election day, november 8, the nation elects our president and decides which party controls the house and senate. follow keyspan and house and senate races. c-span, where history unfolds daily. >> with just over a week to go

until the elections, newsmakers is pleased to host stephen law. he is the president of a super pack club. he also has the american crossroads and a nonprofit called one nation, all of which aim to keep the republican senate in the majority. thank you so much for being with us. >> thank you. >> as we started out, i should tell folks that you have been chief of staff of mitch mcconnell. and still have a great relationship with him. you bring all of that experience to our discussion this way. -- this morning. let me introduce our guests who will be asking questions. eric wenner is chief congressional reporter for associated press. ladies, thank you for being back with newsmakers this week. mr. law, as we start out, you gave an interview to political last week talking about the prospects for keeping the majority and you acknowledged a tough road

ahead and said you were going to go out with guns blazing. with more money at attached to the tight races, and a few more days, do you feel differently at this point? mr. law: i think we have a lot of challenges. they have been with us for the last six months. if you look at the top 11 most competitive races, we have been doing battle. republicans own 10 of them. i think that continues to be that way. in addition to that, we have a ticket that is not totally unified the way that we typically go into presidential election years where everyone is galvanized and pushing in the same direction. and in many other races coming, down to in the end, they are in tough states where president obama won and where hillary clinton is likely to win. our candidates have to outperform. host: these are the ones that are closest. missouri, indiana, nevada, new hampshire, north carolina, and pennsylvania.

are you focusing on any in addition to those? mr. law: well, we continue to be focused on florida. we are finishing our work there. otherwise, the focus is going to be very heavily there. i would say that just of hours -- a couple of hours ago we , heard that the senate majority pact was looking at wisconsin. they are worried about that race tightening. so we need to look at that race as well. >> speaking of tightening, to what do you attribute the last minute shifting in the polls? some of these polls were saying in one place and suddenly, we -- staying in one place and suddenly, we are seeing some shifting in new hampshire where kelly ayotte has fallen behind, missouri where ray blunt is tied up with his democratic challenger. how do you explain these last-minute shifts in the polls? mr. law: what makes this cycle interesting and challenging is that there is no one-size-fits-all way to look at these races. the variations are being caused

by very unique circumstances in these races. kelly ayotte took a tumble with republican voters when she publicly announced she would no longer support donald trump after earlier acknowledging him as a role model. i think that is coming back. i think that race is going to stabilize in at least a competitive direction. i don't know where we are in the polls, but that was a unique circumstance. for roy blunt, his race is getting cross pressured by both the presidential election and the gubernatorial election in his say both of which are ,-- his state both of which are , dominated by talk about outsiders and senator blunt has been a great senator for missouri but i think the democrats have attacked him for someone who is a washington insider and that has hurt him. >> how would you measure the impact of donald trump on these down ballot races? as is a -- as you say he is not , your typical republican nominee. now you have him having an impact on individual races.

what has the impact been of donald trump? mr. law: i would say -- again six months ago, , democrats predicted a senate blowout because we had donald trump at the top of the ticket. what we have seen is fairly marginal impact. in our polling, in most of these states, the republican candidate's position on donald trump, whether they are for him or not for him or somewhere in the middle, is a relatively negligible impact on how voters deal about the senate candidate. the other thing we often forget is that there is roughly a quarter of hillary clinton voters who do not really like her. they just dislike donald trump. they could impact themselves with diehard republicans who are also supporting donald trump but they will pick up some independents who are currently for hillary only because she is not donald trump. >> so to be clear, do you anticipate that on november 9,

republicans will have retained majority in the senate? mr. law: i think at this stage of the game, i am not going to predict where it in addition to that, very significant challenge we have is in typical presidential years, whether you love your presidential candidate or not, there is a tremendous amount of cross the board ticket unity. everyone is doing what they should be doing. voter turnout is being handled by this group and every thing is working seamlessly. we do not have that this time. there is a lot of division in the ticket. the machinery in the things that need to be done to make sure that we get out the vote are

buttoned down than they typically are which gives me a good deal of concern. i will say that six months ago, democrats that they were going to win florida, ohio, and arizona. those have been taken off the table all but completely. three months ago, they thought they were going to win indiana. i think we have thought that to a tie and in the end i think we will end up winning that race. even in the states where clinton is likely to win, all of our candidates are running against donald trump somewhat narrowly. we will see if they can outperform him enough to hold those seats. we have a lot to defend so how it all turns out i am not able to say. >> you mentioned florida. that is where senator rubio is running for election after mitch mcconnell coaxed him into doing so. there has been some reporting lately about democratic dissension about the decision to abandon their candidate there, patrick murphy. and a senate majority pac may be dipping their toe back in. if democrats were able to come up with $10 million to put it behind murphy at this point,

would they give rubio more of a contest? mr. law: the number one problem patrick murphy has is somewhat analogous to what carlos threw had in the primary. murphy is not well known. he doesn't have enough root -- resources to fully make a case against marco rubio. he could drive up the negatives by spending a lot, but could not make himself a viable. if you look at our polling, most public polling shows the same thing, patrick murphy is not well known, and has fairly even favorable and unfavorable ratings. that gets very hard to push out in the last week of elections. it was a tough choice for the democrats to cut their losses, but probably from their vantage point, it was the right choice. they would have to spend $5 million-$10 million to even make it competitive, and even then, marco rubio would win.

ms. ferrechio: can you ask -- explain your last-minute expenditures? you are revving things up and putting more money into races i most unexpectedly. can you talk about that decision and what was behind it? mr. law: absolutely. typically, this time of the election cycle is agonizingly slow, because we have banked everything, we cut all the ads, now we just sit and look at the polls. the silver lining of this activities, we are able to thrust ourselves into the work that still needs to be done. but what we have seen for several weeks is democratic money coming in tens of millions of dollars into senate races. as far as we can tell, it is because groups, particularly unions, are under the view that hillary clinton may have won the presidential race, and it is time to focus on down ballot races. that created a huge imbalance in

the polls. we felt we have to find a way to overcome this, and we were able to. i was not sure we will able to, but we were able to raise a significant amount of money within the space of six days, and he played to at least even out the disadvantage our candidate had. if you subtract out the $25 million that we have put in in the last two weeks, we will have spent from labor day to election day a total of $85 million in -- senate races, on top of the $25 million at the end. we were able to expand, do more digital advertising, so we were able to do more at the end. but it was necessary because of this title wave spending on the democratic side. >> how did you raise $25 million in six days? mr. law: we were on the phone a lot. [laughter] the longer answer is, in

particular, leader mcconnell at the beginning of the cycle recognized there needed to be a correlary to what harry reid successfully built in the senate majority pack, and what both republicans and democrats have done with their them -- governors association's. he encouraged us to make the senate majority fund -- the senate leadership fund, and build a corollary. over the course of the last couple of years, he and others, including myself, have worked hard to build a national donor network that is invested in saving the senate majority. i can't imagine how many miles he has logged, but he has worked to convince people this is important. we have gotten a lot of buy-in from that. that ended up being critical because a number of donors, particularly donors we have had

in the past, have been discouraged about the presidential race. some of them have checked out. they just haven't been that involved. their ability to focus on something that is achievable, which is helping senate candidates doing something they feel is a measurable impact, enabled us to build the network. in fairly short order, we can send out the alarm, and send the bat signal, and do everything we need to do. a lot of the donors responded generously. without the legwork, it would not have been possible to do it that fast. >> how do you sell that to the donors? if they think the top of the ballot is not someone i necessary like -- necessarily like, and he drags down lower ballot races, what do you say to

donors about maybe the disconnect between who they favor as a nominee and the republican senate candidates you are asking them to help salvage? mr. law: sure. one thing is a number of donors had supported other candidates in the primary process. they started from a position of disappointment that whoever they invested in did not be the nominee, but a lot of the donors also had a lot of buy-in to the senate majority. we helped get a number of people in who a lot of people think are the future of the republican party. people like tom cotton, joni people like tom cotton, joni ernst, and other people who are aspiring, sharp leaders who are conservative, but have a tremendous amount of appeal. this is to support the future of the party, and something that i think a lot of the donors gravitated to, at a time when they fell at the top of the ticket had not worked out the way they hoped. ms. ferrechio: can you talk about the way the different

candidates have handled donald trump? we saw some that endorsed him early on and stuck with that. those that never backed him, those that endorsed and unendorsed, and then re-endorsed. which of those scenarios has been more successful in this election? [laughter] mr. law: susan mentioned at the onset, my long relationship with senator mcconnell. one thing i always admired is his ability to lock down in a position and stick with it. very often what happens if people stop asking you. if you will give the same answer today that you got six months ago, you get bored and move on to somebody else. i think one of the challenges some of the candidates have had is they feel the need to respond to every new cycle, and everything that trump says. that has caught some of the candidates up. as i said earlier, polling indicates that where a candidate is on donald trump a relatively

negligible impact on voters. if they are marginally against him, they pick up hillary clinton voters who don't like her that much, but they may affect the republican side. i think where the candidates have gotten in the most trouble is where they have taken multiple positions in short order, that makes them look like they are trying to achieve a political advantage rather than on principle. i think that is the area of candidates have gotten themselves in trouble. at the end of the day, does it matter much? i think it may not matter that much in the end, but that is a risk. ms. werner: as you say, mcconnell has locked down his position on trump, he has endorsed him, but has kept quiet throughout much of the campaign. what do you see his role as, in the next congress, if it is a 50

50 senate, which is possible? then you will have a tiebreaker for the white house. what do you see as his role in the minority? if the remaining as the republican leader, or maybe moving on? a lot of people are wondering what the future holds for the majority leader. mr. law: i haven't talked to him about that, but my expectation is that his unique gifts of leadership will be all the more necessary, regardless of where we end up, whether donald trump happens to income or hillary clinton is president, or whether we are at 50 or 49. one of the things that has stood out in this particular election is that senator mcconnell has worked probably harder than any republican leader in history to make sure that there was an outside effort that was funded, and aggressively focused on making sure we get everything we could to the majority -- i think that will matter a lot. additionally, he's a tremendous leader for figuring your way through adverse circumstances.

if we are in a situation where the wind is not at our back, that will be something where people want his leadership. the other thing you can't forget post this election, is two years from now, there will be another election, where it will be the absolute inverse. many more democrats, versus just eight republicans. that's an opportunity to get the majority back, and having a four-time consiglio ringleader like senator mcconnell would be an asset. ms. ferrechio: say donald trump does not win on november 9. say republicans are in the minority, or even the majority. it doesn't matter, there is talk of maybe anger or backlash against leaders, either for not endorsing him or not supporting him enough, not getting behind him, not helping prop up the top of the ticket. what do you foresee in terms of potential backlash post donald

trump at the gop establishment, who has along the way, has had a lot of criticism in terms of how they did or did not support him? mr. law: some of that is kind of hard to predict. one of the things we spend a lot of time trying to figure out is whether this particular election and this particular nominee was part of a new direction of the party, or sort of an anomaly. was he able to win the nomination because he cobbled together a small but secure part of the republican base, that while the other candidates were contending against him, had to divide up the rest of the pie, or does he represent some sort of future more populist representation of the party? the party has been pretty consistent in nominating a mainstream conservative candidate. this is a completely different

direction. i think how it is resolved will essentially be the answer to that question. is the party itself changing direction, or was this an anomaly driven in part by the circumstances of this contest? ms. ferrechio: how do you think it resolves? that is the big question. mr. law: i think probably two thirds are still a mainstream conservative party. that is where we are and where we end up. you have, obviously, some defending what trump does. does he go away, does he build another building, does he make the wrecking ball to the republican party? you also have the freedom caucus part of the party, people who are locked in very safe districts, who think we ought to be taking on battles that end up in box canyon defeats, but at least we stood for something. i think all that will have to get sorted out. but i think in the end, the

party as a whole is a mainstream conservative party. incidentally, i think the democrats have their own challenge. i think the reality is the center of gravity of the democratic party is a progressive, far left, liberal party. you look at how far bernie sanders got, even though it was mano a mano against to a clinton, two people from the beginning, he came fairly close to knocking her of her perch. i think the center of gravity for the democrats is more far left than the center of gravity for the republican party is far right. the challenge for the republican party is donald trump did speak to, and energize and activate, a center of the electorate that is not strongly republican, but available to the republican party, but i think the republican party has largely ignored them for years. i think the republican party has pitched itself more to kind of mainstream business constituents, which i think is good, but there are also a lot

of blue-collar soft conservatives, typically in rust belt states, who don't like the democratic party. it is too liberal, but they have not heard anything in the republican party that appeals to them. that is the question going forward, whether the party can appeal to them without necessarily engaging in a kind of rhetorical excess we have seen from -- excess we have seen from donald trump. ms. swain: we have five minutes left. ms. werner: you mentioned 2018 and the red state democrats that are going to be up for reelection. thinking about how the republican party tries to put itself together, does that argue for mitch mcconnell, who makes deals with hillary clinton, potentially in the white house, and chuck schumer as the democratic leader, or one who tries to turn -- opposed them at any turn? mr. law: that's a great question. i like the phrase putting itself together, because we don't do that successfully. i think that success lies in the

direction of finding things to get done that don't compromise our principles and our base. in addition to that, assuming we hold the house, which i assume we will, i don't think the house would allow for a shift in any kind of leftward direction anyway. i actually think whether or not we hold the senate, if we are close or hold the house, i think it is equally interesting how hillary clinton relates to that if president. my assumption is there will be a desire to get things done, to show forward progress, but it could end up being that the white house wants to stay pretty far left, and the house and majority of republicans in the senate are not going to want to go in that direction, so you could end up with potentially two years as a stalemate. ms. werner: on trump and the rhetoric from him on the rigged election and so forth, is there

anything that hurts down ballot candidates? is there any evidence that that would take place? mr. law: that's an interesting question about whether that kind of rhetoric can make people think it is all for naught. hillary clinton has her own mobilization problems as well. both sides seem to be pretty motivated to vote, based on polling. i think the main concern i have is whether the machinery is there, as it typically is, to make sure that people who are

make sure that people who are more episodic voters are still encouraged to go out and vote. that part, i don't know about it we have been watching some early voting, and it doesn't suggest democrats have an overwhelming advantage compared to past years, but there are signs we are concerned about that the machinery is not delivering the vote the way it needs to in some places. in a close race, the change of a couple percentage points could determine the outcomes of the election. ms. swain: two minutes, final question. ms. ferrechio: it's interesting talking about the future of the parties and how the white house would interact, one big topic is immigration reform and that there could be a strong push for immigration reform in a democratic white house in the early days. what is your sense? that is an enormous and divisive issue for the republican party.

how do you think that would be handled by the senate, where there's a lot of division, and there would be also a lot of pressure to try to get something done, as it has been lingering around congress for many cycles? where do you see that going? mr. law: i think the republican party is going to continue on border security as a key deliverable. democrats are very uncomfortable with that. this issue is going to be different now than it was three or four years ago, when the gang of eight was working on it, in part because there's a lot of evidence that illegal border crossing and attempts are at record levels. in addition, you have an overlay of a national security concern. in the past, we never used to think or worry about people coming into the country who might really want to do us harm here they may be here illegally, but they are looking for their own financial benefit. i think this issue has become more complicated. i think there's a risk for democrats taking the immigration issue is the same immigration issue it was four years ago.

i think republicans have a few more arrows in the quiver than they had before. that's not to say it is an issue we can be blind about. i think it's important for republicans to find a way to deal with immigration, so we are not hurting ourselves badly with immigrant communities, be they hispanic, or increasingly large groups of immigrants in the asian-american community. i think it is important we deal with that. but democrats are not at risk in this. they have their own division. organized labor is very ambivalent about reform. both parties will have to figure out if there's a way for them to not just seek partisan advantage, but to get enough done so they can hold interest in common. ms. swain: if hillary clinton wins the white house, do you see the majority leader pushing merrick garland as the supreme court nomination? mr. law: that's not in my crystal ball. it might be moved to get it

done, i don't know how the democrats would take it. at this point, above my pay grade. ms. swain: thank you very much for being with "newsmakers." mr. law: thank you for having me. i appreciate it. ms. swain: "newsmakers," is back after our conversation with steven law, who heads the senate leadership fund, dedicated to keeping the republican majority. on c-span on friday morning, we had the head of the democratic party in ohio who made a comment that this election cycle is showing why citizens united should be repealed, that it is showing that the koch brothers can buy senate seat. we heard a lot of money going into the senate elections. is it clear where the money is at this point? ms. werner: i think we should make the point this is going on on both sides. at the end of the day, when you take everything into account, that is the republican and democratic groups, there will not be a huge amount of difference on how much each side

has spent. as we heard mr. law saying, the senate leadership fund has been remarkably successful, particularly in october, raising some $43 million in the course of the month to date. a lot of big donors, writing big checks. certainly, there are those who want to get that money out of politics, mitch mcconnell is not one of those people. i don't think we will see that change anytime soon. ms. ferrechio: i would agree. both parties are big spenders. these elections have become increasingly expensive. the campaign finance laws, when you look at public polling, you see it at the bottom of what citizens are concerned about. part of the reason they don't understand the flow of money between big donors, the pac's, the candidates, and lawmakers,

it is all confusing, even to people following it daily. i think that's one of the reasons why it never moved up on the level of importance for voters. it is talked about every election cycle, but it takes a lot to get movement on campaign finance reform. it is really difficult. the last time congress did anything about it was years ago. i don't see it happening anytime soon, especially if you have the divided government that we are predicting in the fall, and in 2017, where you will have republicans likely holding the house. any effort to move campaign finance there would be practically impossible. ms. swain: that was a good portion of the conversation, not just on mechanics and money, and senate races, but what washington looks like after election day. the prediction is that republicans will keep the house, even if the democrats win the senate, two years of stalemate.

both of you cover this town. you agree with him that stalemate will be the order of the day after the election? ms. werner: yes is the short answer. once you get used to covering congress, it is like you are so used to stalemate, it becomes a matter of degrees. i'm sitting here thinking, well, they might get an infrastructure bill done with international tax reform. in our world, that would be a big deal, but i think to regular people, that is like, what is congress doing? the possibility to do something tha is really landmark legislation in any area is small. susan asked about immigration. it is hard to see a republican-led house signing onto a major immigration reform bill, maybe something around the is edges. stalemate would be the name of the game. [laughter] ms. ferrechio: it will be very hyper political. democrats are actually divided. you are going to have the bernie

sanders and elizabeth warren side of the party, and all the people who backed bernie sanders putting pressure upon hillary clinton to fulfill the promises she made to win over those sanders voters. that is going to push her further to the left. nothing gets harder than i white house to the left, and a house center-right. it is a gap too wide, philosophically, to come together. paul ryan has a strong desire to do tax reform. so does charles schumer, and potentially the incoming democratic leader. that leads to maybe a sliver of compromise potentially on international tax reform, and perhaps in infrastructure bank or money. big ideas, you almost need unified government, either all democrat or all republican, in order to get past the partisan fighting. ms. swain: mr. law was not willing to tackle the supreme court question, but would both of you give us a sense of what the supreme court nominations

might look like with a slim democratic majority, or even the republicans retaining majority and hillary clinton in the white house? ms. werner: that is hard to predict at this point. there has been rhetoric from a couple of republican senators recently, john mccain and ted cruz, suggesting they will take a very obstructionist approach in any nominee from hillary clinton. that could lead to a change in the filibuster rules that the democrats would push, allowing a nominee to be approved with just 50 votes. ms. ferrechio: will she choose merrick garland? you hear from chuck schumer that he will not endorse merrick garland, he says i will talk privately with president clinton, if she wins. there are other possible nominees. the democrats may want someone more liberal as a nominee. the first question we need to ask, who will the nominee be at this point? it's not 100% certain. ms. swain: the story continues, as washington always does. lots more ahead after the

election he will be very busy. thank you for being with us this week. thank you. room brings you more debates this week from key races. tonight at 10:00, the pennsylvania senate debate katyen pat toomey and mcginty. followed at 11:00, trey gowdy and chris for daily debate in the south carolina fourth district race. at midnight, the north carolina governors debate between at andury, roy cooper, lawrence issa. and monday night at 8:00, republican senator rand paul and jim gray debate the kentucky senate seat.

now until election day, watch key debates on the c-span networks, c-span.org, and listen on the c-span radio app. c-span, where history unfolds daily. >> now, the european commission president and european council president discuss brexit. migration issues, and relations with russia. these remarks follow the conclusion of the european summit this week. this is an hour and 10 minutes. >> i officially open the meeting. ladies and gentlemen, at the

beginning of today's meetings, after having spoken to the president of the european council, and the president of the european commission, and given the fact that all three institutions are present this morning, i have decided to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the uprising of the people of hungry against the soviet dictatorship. 60 years ago on monday, the uprising began and lasted many weeks. and cost many lives. the people of hungry rose up against the dictatorship of a brutal and oppressive foreign regime, unrivaled in its violence. the struggle of the hungarian people against the soviet occupier is a struggle which has

condemned -- been condemned by history and will not be forgotten. which the people of hungry set in 1956 has consequences. the heroes of that struggle people around the warsaw pact saw how you could stand up against the occupier. firstprising was not the but it was one of the most important in a long line of such uprisings. and after decades of a prescient eventually, it led to success. without the and norma's curis shown in 1956, the subsequent kurds shown in the 1980's -- the subsequent courage shown in the ary0's and 1989 when hung opened its borders to austria, without that her age it would not of impossible.

of that uprising was fueled by the desire of the people to rejoin with the european family. people -- when forced to choose, they said that they chose europe. with that philosophy in mind, the fight against central and eastern europe was inspired that the struggle of the hungarians. this morning, i had the withtunity to discuss this someone who himself in the 1980's was a freedom fighter. he went to prison. as a result, he underlined the profound and very real solidarity he feels with the people of hungary. the people of the parliament has

a duty to extend to the people of hungary. many of the thousands of men and women who fought against the dictatorship were forced to leave their country and those people were ultimately welcomed into other countries as refugees. so, in your name, i hope i have successfully conveyed our solidarity to the people of hungary. [applause] as i announced on monday ladies and gentlemen, i have her first the matter of the altercation between two members of this parliament to the advisory committee and the conflict of members. the committee to deal with the matter as a matter of urgency.

the advisory committee has transmitted to meet its recommendation. the versionsthat of the facts given by the two members involved diverged substantially. -- it is also stressed that given the seriousness of the situation, further evidence is needed to clarify the matter. result, i have decided to follow the recommendation of the advisory committee and i have referred the matter to the french authorities. based on the results of the investigations, i will then take a decision about whether to impose sanctions pursuant to 166.one success -- to rule i will keep you informed about the follow-up given to this regrettable incident.

moving on to the first item of today's agenda, before taking that decision, i have an administrative announcement to make. on my left, we have the deputy general secretary of the european parliament. sitting in for the last time today. she has been working for the european parliament since 1979. she started her career in the as aean parliament personal assistant. i think, thanks to her time as an assistant, she had a front-row seat in the building of european union. since then, she has taken on a

whole series of rolls and through both her work and her personality, she has made enormous contribution to the european project. so, i would like to take this opportunity to express my heartfelt gratitude to you for your enormous commitment to the european parliament and union. thank you. [applause] so, the agenda. the first item this morning is the conclusions of the european council meeting of the 20th and 21st of october.

the first speaker is the president of the council, mr. tusk. tusk: the president, members of the parliament, the european had three mainek topics, migration, trade, and russia including russia's role in syria. on migration, for the first time in more than a year, the european council was not in a crisis meeting. 98% compared to this time last year. on the, irregular flows central military and route from africa to italy, remains unchanged in the last two years.

we discussed the cooperation with africa. made efforts to control the flow in partnership with the key countries. laidgroundwork has been niger,negal, mali, nigeria, and ethiopia on the so-called migration compact. leaders who assessed first results in december in terms of our goals which is to prevent illegal migration through italy into the rest of europe and to usher affective returns of irregular migrants. leaders also discussed getting back to schengen. the goal continues to left barriers in time. the commissions -- the

commission can need -- continue to assess the situation. question question of a reform e common european asylum system was also discussed including how to apply the principle of solidarity and responsibility in the future. we agreed to consider concrete proposals by the slovak presidency in december. we also discussed russia. shared individual experiences of several countries ranging from information, cyber attacks, interference and political processes, to violations of community conflict in ukraine. the balkans and further afield. the 8the development of

-- of the mh 70 investigation raised questions. although we had a sober assessment of this reality and no illusions including extensions with russia is not our aim. we are simply reacting to steps taken from russia. our long-term objective remains to find a solution. including keeping the door open to dialogue. the european unity in approaching russia is our so west challenge and will stand united. we also discussed syria. attacks by the syrian regime and its allies, notably russia.

end tois calling for an the atrocities and an immediate cessation of hostilities. the high representative to pursue further diplomatic and humanitarian efforts in these -- if these atrocities continue, all available options will be considered. the syrian people need an immediate and permanent cease-fire and the reopening of humanitarian aid corridors. the last issue we discussed was trade. our citizens are increasingly concerned about whether the trade deals negotiated will be in the best interest. bem afraid that we will not able to continue to negotiate free-trade agreements if we do not prove that we are very serious about protecting european consumers.

we drew a big redline between protection and protectionism. in this spirit, leaders committed to reaching an agreement on the modernization of all of the eu trade instruments. i know that this is parliament -- that this parliament is ready to support this. when it comes to the agreement, the eu is still not ready to sign the agreement with canada. but talks continue in belgium this moment. thosek -- i think all of who have helped to facilitate these talks especially jean-claude yunker. you have shown a genuine responsibility and thank you

very much for your help. at the end of the day, only the belgians can decide on the belgian position. i am impressed by the determination and engagement they have shown during the last hours. i still hope that belgium will prove that it is a consensus building champion and we will be able to finalize this agreement soon. here, i must also express my gratitude to the canadians and the canadian side for the cooperation and perseverance. if we cannot make the case for free trade with a country like canada, the most european countries outside of europe and a close friend and ally, the obvious consequences for europe's global position. but it is too early to go there yet. as we speak, the agreement tomorrow is still possible.

trade agreement, the theh prime minister inform european council about the difficulties in ratifying the agreement. to prime minister promised review in the next few days to try to work out a solution with the dutch parliament to address these difficulties. whatever the outcome of the it is clear that we need to find a way i had that is also agreeable to the other 27 month -- member states. gladso report that we were to welcome prime minister may at the european council. she confirmed that the united kingdom will invoke article 50 of the treaty before the end of march next year. policy of noth our negotiations without

notification, we did not discuss brexit, however given prime minister meza confirmation that article 50 would be triggered, let me recall the eu 27 position of the 29th of june. we want as close relations as ossible with the u.k. there must be a balance between right and obligations. enjoy continued access to the single market that it involves accepting movement freedom. let me recall the meeting of the 27 liters that were heard in september in bratislava. we met informally to discuss the future of europe in light of the u.k. referendum on brexit. it is also reflected in the bratislava roadmap, we set out a number of actions to adjust the

main concerns of europeans, migration, and security both internal and secured -- both internal and external. it is now for member states and the eu institutions to implement the roadmap and as a matter of fact, we party started to do so. on the fifth of october, the eu ratified the paris agreement on climate change. the next day, the european coast guard was launched in record time. parliament had excellent and swift cooperation. and last week, the bulgarian just minister signed thanked his colleagues for the support to help protect the borders with turkey as decided in bratislava. thanks. [applause] >> thank you.

the next speaker is president yunker. good morning. gentlemen, honorable members, the european council on thursday and friday last in impression tothe the outside world that we only discussed the free trade agreement with canada. that was not the case. there were other items for discussion and there was progress notably in the fields of migration. still a long way to go and there are many pitfalls on the way. to strengthen our shared border we have created in record time a european order and coast guard which is now in place and which now needs to be equipped with the staff and equipment it needs to be able to respond with the

necessary speed. whicher is the date by all of the planned systems have to be in place. trust that the code an entryrs will adopt exit system for the european union by the end of the year in order to contain illegal migration. migrationllegal breaking up smuggling chains, and allowing legal migration to europe, requires us to work with turkey and in the six months since the adoption of the eu-turkey declaration, the in the sixigrants

months since the signing of the reduction we have a crossing thegrants border from turkey into greece. in six months since 2015, there -- 582 deaths000 of migrants crossing from turkey into greece in the same time period this year. it was 48. that is still 48 to many. we have to consolidate the maintained and that means continuing to help greece, providing the officials necessary for the agencies working on the ground and we need to help unaccompanied

minors. we need to continue relocating migrants from greece and continue the process of resettlement from turkey to europe. said, weent tusk continue to work with our african partners. we are working to agree on compacts with countries like niger, nigeria, molly, and ethiopia. there is progress being made but again this is a new form of cooperation which needs to be consolidated, extended to other countries, and asked arnold into -- and the external investment plan must kick in. and we need tost do so quickly. reform thed to

european asylum regime including the dublin mechanism. the commission has proposed a genuinely european mechanism based on solidarity. in germany. mr. president, i would like to say a few words about chf -- about citaf. i trust that an agreement would be reached in the course of today between the governments of and otherallonia, parts of the country. know if we will be able to sign the agreement with canada tomorrow. in fact, signing tomorrow is not the point. what is the point is that there

be an agreement reached for today so that the kingdom of belgium can sign the agreement at the appropriate moment. important trade in green met. all trade agreements are important. europeans should not only insist on free trade, we should insist on fair trade. we are in favor of free trade but not free trade being brought about at any price. needs toean union improve its trade defense instruments. high quality trade defense instruments are vital.

preparations for the european council, i had a look at the figures, what the usa is doing and what the european union is doing. and i see that nobody is criticizing the usa. americans imposed 265% in anti-dumping duties on certain chinese deal products. trade defense measure in the european union is 20%. fightat is not the way to overproduction in china. china isction in double the level of production

in the european union. allownce, we should not our hands to continue to be tied. their steels defend industry and we should do the same. [applause] that is not the view of everyone in council. the member states fall into two categories. 1312 is the usual -- 13-12 is the usual dividing line and i insist that we improve the quality of our trade defense instruments and the future of our industry, not just the steel industry depends on that and i will continue to campaign for that. we need a qualified agreement for that. our relationship with our

partners in the world would be easier if we made more of an effort to make europe's economy were competitive. many things would be easier if we were more competitive. really do need to tackle this issue. we can describe the results of the european investment plan but you have seen all of the figures. quite a bit.ized we have new loans. reach pursuing the aim to 350 billion from now until the year after next year. we have proposed as a commission to double the financial amount of the investments and we have proposed to the council to and thehe duration

european council will come back to this issue in december. and i really do hope that on the basis of all of the external and internal assessments, that we will be provided and that the european council will take a decision along the lines of the proposal of the commission. and now, finally mr. president, a word about the difficulties that are in terms of the dutch ratification of the agreement with ukraine. i would like to take this opportunity to appeal to the politicians of the netherlands to understand the magnitude of this problem. it would be useful to achieve internal domestic political agreement in the netherlands on this issue. thank you mr. president. [applause]

>> thank you president of the commission. i would like to open the debate. colleagues, i have had a look at the european treaty to see what the task of the european council is. thetask is described strategic direction. to give some orientation to the continent. if i look at the headlines, i must say it does not seem to fit because the council seems to be creating more confusion than orientation and that is rather disappointing. that we go through the different topics. trade policy. are millions of people out of work, particularly young people in this continent out of work. we want to create jobs and to do that we have to create growth. we will not get growth given our demographic developments without normal trade.

is -- has completed an asian trade agreement. other countries are taking our place. that is the challenge we face. what is the answer? up withbasically ended the canadian negotiators throwing in the towel and threatening to travel away. why did we end up in the situation? we are responsible for this in the european parliament. in the last european council meeting in july, the majority said that we need a mixed anything else.ot what are we going to learn for the future? topics on europe have to be answered in the european parliament and nowhere else. [applause] what else have we learned? you have learned that we have to stand up -- i want to appeal to

the socialists. when i see the austrian chancellor's efforts to respond to the canadians, then i think we need to work together and try to resolve these problems and i would like to expressly support the commission's attempts to get more trade defense and morph fair trade. we said -- we clearly have challenges with russia as well. they continue to use a war. there are hundreds dying every day in aleppo. the council was supposed to answer this but it has been a weak response. discounting the of using instruments. we had the instruments.

that we couldents use. it seems that is the only vladimirthat understands, the language of strength. i would like to see more strength from the european council. the only positive thing i have to say is probably the statement from theresa may. why? because she shows to the european public what it means to leave the european union. people see all over europe how big the damage is to great britain already. arepeople of scotland thinking about leaving great britain. the scottish prime minister is rethinking a new referendum. in great britain. leadingave been the party, the tory party, an ongoing battle between hammond and johnson and no one will know

the outcome. theresa may shows to the european people more and more recognize what populism means because even here in the european parliament, you saw what populism means. and, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen -- >> mr. weber? >> if you let mr. weber finish and listen to what he has to

say, i will give you the opportunity to make a point of order afterwards. >> the rules are quite clear. the rules do not provide for you having the right to shout down speakers. in this house, you have rules. start by looking carefully at your own behavior here, sir. [applause] weber, please. continue. ber: part of the truth is behaving as ruffians.

cita, well the commission has put together a very good result. we in the european parliament will be able to get a majority behind cita, but unfortunately, we have the european council in a state of confusion. it is important for us to defend our citizens in a globalized world. and the european parliament, we ,re capable of getting support it is the member states where we have a problem where it is split. a migration, we have a similar situation. we have someone was pleasant good proposals on the table to respond to the migration crisis. it is the counsel that cannot stop squabbling. it is not a question of a lack

of europe, is the question of unity, european unity, decisiveness, and the leadership is what we would like to ask from you council. >> mr. weber, your question, go ahead. >> it is regrettable that mp's squared up to each other. there was no evidence anyone was punched. i want to put that in the record. if you would like to live outside with me -- [laughter] >> we can have a civilized conversation over a cup of coffee. [laughter] [applause] i have seene,

pictures of your colleagues lying on the floor. i saw them. i was shocked when i saw them. that kind of as in the democratic parliament, as results of the dispute. i am hearing more and more reports from great written -- great britain from citizens facing xina, -- xenophobic comments. going tohy we are struggle against the type of policies that you stand for, sir. [applause] >> thank you, mr. president. as an investigation going on into the events that mr. weber made accusations about.

one that one of your colleagues is investigating. what he has said it has prejudiced the investigation. i suggest to you, regarding the rules, could you do something about it. [applause] pres. tusk: i am not sure if you're in the house at the beginning of the meeting. i actually announced though as referrede event the matter to the code of conduct. -- and referred the matter to the cold of conduct. they advised me to send it to the prosecutor. medical examinations carried out altz's admission

to the hospital. it is suggested when he collapsed, he struck his head. that is from medical reports for i took notes from the allegations and there's a clear suspicion he was subjected to ask of violence, which is why we referred the matter to prosecution. the next speaker is on behalf of the socialist group. >> thank you, mr. president. i would like to welcome the president's. is, certain members of the european council seem to have forgotten what our

president once said, he said if you want to ride a bike, you have to paddle and if you do not end up flat on your face. that is likely europe. you have to pedal. they forget to pedal. with had a reminder after -- we have had reminder after this summit when we talked about syria. reiterated calls to step up humanitarian aid and nothing seems to be done. and the sanctions as well, but we need some kind of instrument to bring these matters to an end. commend commendthat we the actions by certain countries.

the same countries are welcoming to refugees. we also welcome the role of the european union which mr. juncker talked about. however, the silence of the council on these matters are december.from the council continues to talk , but extending investment what is there to talk about? we want you to extend the plan and cap up. -- up. -- step up. it is not enough stop about relocation. it is double standards on the right which failed to convince me they have plenty to say about while remaining silent when it comes to resettlement. we have to ensure that all of those people who have been some kind of unification on these issues.

we have to remember that we are talking about the most progressive trade agreement. not an ideological condemnation of the agreement, there is a justified agreement for clarification, mr. juncker, mr. schulz are aware. they stress we have to keep working on it. solution good balance as far as immigration. we have to put an end to this attitude. anyone.of no help to i would like to wind down by parliament european faces -- we have to speak out loud, but in a united way. we have to denounce what is happening in aleppo and come up

with a trade agreement. moreave to cry out for a equal policy. well have to show dignity for the people of europe. we have to have those courage to stand up. those children to have a better future. that's what we should all be trying to build. >> thank you. if ever there was a theme, the ring them would be -- theme would be gridlock. failing to move on key issues facing the west and the eu right when countries are asking questions of their leaders. defined bybeen

weakness and indecision. , whye should ask ourselves is it so difficult to unite on these key issues? why does a trade agreement fail the last hurdle? also asking if the eu cannot reach an agreement with the countries such as canada, a country with similar labor standards, what hope do we have for the rest of the world they eu is open for business? why couldn't the 28th leaders and make progress? there is a fundamental disconnect between eu leaders and the people they represent. with individuals and communities , we use the language of compromise. know,ople outside want to will as they have more money in their pay package? will they be able to pay their bills?

and all too often, these simple questions go unanswered. is leaders failed to address these concerns, if leaders fail to listen to the warnings, if leaders failed to make the case, do not be surprised if in many of our countries, voters turned to extremists. i realize our countries have different histories and perhaps different interest when dealing with russia. but responding to russia's actions is something which should unite us rather than divide us. when we see continued violations by russia and ukraine and georgia, where we see the bombing of aleppo and its people and seeing russia and the external border, the whole west should be united together to exert what power we have.

the eu only have soft power, but surely soft power should be better than no power at all. economic sanctions are beginning to have an effect on russia, but not nearly enough. at this point, leaders cannot agree to go further. name --ne eu country,'s what kind of signal does that send about our resolve? as of this rate, where facing a future of the lowest denominator politics. we needed a summit of action. we needed a summit of decisiveness. yet again, this not what we cover. it is time to open our eyes and see what is happening around us just as these action has its consequences, and action also ion also hast

consequences. putin walking get to other countries unchecked and uninhibited. if this is the result of our inaction, do not be surprised if our electorate eventually punish us. extremism and to gain the confidence of the people who vote for us, we need solutions. we need actions. a new direction to break the gridlock that we currently face. [applause] pres. tusk: mr. juncker have a question for you. >> thank you very much, mr. president. , but toa great orator give us very few answers. russia,weaker action to

should counsel have imposed sanctions. what should it have done? very robustly the bombing of aleppo. please, give us some answers. >> thank you very much for the compliment, i will take any compliment in this place. it was clear. councild should the imposed sanctions. the clear answer is, yes. they are starting to work. we should not let up. we should have imposed more sanctions and we shall look at what ever instruments we have. we are to show true unity, we have to use what instruments we have and we can use sanctions. behalf of: and now on the liberals and democrats.

chair.k you, mr. tusk, mr. juncker, it seems to be our current theme, total inability of the council to take any kind of decision. ta, war in wants it to be salvaged. if more time is needed, it is needed. -- one group wants it to be salvaged. we cannot undo the work that has been done. trade is critical for prosperity. winners of this episode are not to the farmers. the winners are china, and russia and other countries. they get to center the standards and not in europe. some and this house are welcoming defeat because they are against citaf and that is a

very dangerous type of approach. it would abu moraine. tomorrow, a veto would be used against european priorities. the episode exposes a much bigger problem. the weakness of the council. mr. tusk, the eu cannot continue like this. if we look at the list of topics -- topics on the table, sanctions against russia blocked, citaf blocked. then -- been kept dangling for months. we cannot continue like this. the eu is like a three engine plane with one completely broken down. it is still flying and the other 2 are working, but it cannot sell course until the council engine is fixed.

mr. tusk, please ensure the european tusk, please ensure the european union will not undergo the same fate as the 18th century as the parliament was paralyzed by veto. toowing every single person -- as a result, poland did not become greater but irrelevant. the council has to take responsibility for the european council as a whole and have to do so soon. not only will our citizens tire of the council, europe is rapidly making itself irrelevant. it has already been mentioned. the victims of the same inability to make decisions are the people in syria. fails, we lose any leverage we might have to stop the bombing. we need a political transition urgently and that means we need

to be able to put pressure on mr. putin. the victims are equally the refugees. i am surprised the commission to be quite -- jubilant about the successful refugee program. the united nations just said 2016 is the deadliest year so far. more people of june around and the mediterranean than any year before. how can you say is a success? how can that counsel look itself in the eyes and the mirror and say this is a success? mr. tusk, the council, the member state leaders have a duty to end the paralysis, a duty towards the world. [applause]

>> thank you. for peace and against all wars. it is right to condemn the attacks and bombings of the syrian regime. but there are no good and bad qualities. bombs, the jihadists and the rebels in west aleppo which forms the corridor. the u.s. bombing that killed civilians are bad. the saudis killed civilians and children in yemen.

the same way you show tolerance to the israeli bombings that destroyed hospitals. tried to.s. and nato take at the area by violence. it is the council's responsibility that we are being hypocritical and the unacceptable agreement with turkey, which is against international law. and creates the conditions for trafficking. instead of criticizing the government, which is becoming more and more polar terry -- perpetrating it is genocide against the kurds and persecuting journalists.

were awarded, we recognize them as safe countries. we would like also to liberalize without turkey having obligations towards the these states. these are double standards. policy which is made the refugee crisis even worse. saidommissioner council there should be more border guard. more control on our borders. more fortress. it is your responsibility. drowned now refugees near the libyan coast. not face the humanitarian crisis and this way.

what we need is a policy based on solidarity and humanity. we need legal and safe routes. binding --air and to stop the wars in the middle east, we should help the countries in africa. regarding citaf, the people with their struggles, they marginalized and it is clear that the council and commission should bring back -- by the back door. we need a welcome and courageous stand for wallonia. salvaged the decency of the

european union. will of millions of eu citizens. thank you. pres. tusk: a blue card question for you. will you accept? will you accept to the question? >> thank you, president. thank you. european is against all acts of violence in the syrian war. condemn the you not of -- by the u.s. air force which was never permitted?

>> i think that i was clear. if you heard everything i said. i spoke about u.s. warmings as well. -- bombings as well. it killed civilians and children. we should not just only condemn the bombings in aleppo. we should condemn the jihadi actions, the actions of the , as well asthers the u.s. bombings. mr. tusk: and now for the green group. >> conversations, rejections, that is what too many of our citizens feel about europe now. many people in this room, i am happy to see a sign to the return to national identity, but

, no, i do not think it is correct. it is an alarm to say things seem to be moving further away from reality. we see the situation of wallonia , one of the most inclusive regions of the european region. they rejected the treaty and that is no accident. wallonia, its in has been the number one subject that got our citizens motivated, british speaking citizens in wallonia have looked to the details in a way that no one has in europe. they have examined a very carefully. as they have very serious idea that the the

shareholders should have power over our democracies rather than be a killjoy, wallonia is representing all of our citizens who reject a trade deal that only serves one group. one -- some are suggesting that wallonia is isolated but it is quite the contrary. a wide rejection of the settlement system, including the austrians and many other countries. first of all, there has been a denial when it came to the president a wallonia expressing concern. then they said, if you have an agreement, they tried intimidation, mr. tusk.

declarations doubt the legitimacy. wallonia's efforts to block the has gone against the attitude of others. there are concerns about tax evasion and financial regulation. the decision by the european wascil last week was there the extremist for free trade and the extremists against migration. finances canand circulate freely but not human beings. that seems to come out of the council. want to knowzens

if leaders are capable of taking back control. your state of union address, mr. juncker, you said you wanted your to protect the european way of life. sir, let's measure your words by your ax. ,n french speaking belgium courts thatmove the are removing rights from our citizens are you the -- citizens. there needs to be a clear about what is public and what is private. i think it is very important about the conflicts in the treaty. will it take time? yes, it will take time. democracy takes time.

i do not think a few extra months will -- the rejection from wallonia should not put in and to your trade policy our citizens are not opposed to to ensureher, we need that it is not just a question of maximizing the flow because that may not be compatible with environment. the objective should be to theect the tax standards, environmental and social standards at the highest levels. these are the standards that have to create the framework within which free trade can develop. trade policy can never be decided upon in secret. quite the contrary, we need full transparency